Hi Ruth, On Nov 13, 2009, at 4:35 PM, Ruth Hoffman wrote:
> Hi All: > As I sit back here and read the many an various opinions about the current > state and future of OFBiz, I have to say I really appreciate everyone taking > the time to voice an opinion. Maybe David will take this to heart and factor > all this into his OFBiz lite project. > > Concerning competing interests, I didn't intend that comment in a "mean" way. > I think it is good that there is so much interest in OFBiz. Naturally with a > project as multi-faceted as this, there will be various special interests > that evolve. I think that is a good thing. Perhaps a better way to say this > is that I would like to see, and I think several others on the list have > expressed a special interest in, taking the OFBiz framework (and what exactly > is included in the framework should be discussed) and making it a separate > "something" - so that it can get all the care and attention it deserves. > This has been already discussed in the past and the general consensus was that: 1) the framework should be able to stand without applications, i.e. the framework should NOT depend on the applications; a lot of work went into this direction and now you can build a framework only version of OFBiz; however the work is still not complete, and we need help on this, especially in these areas: * user (not party) management and permission management screen should be moved out of the partymanager application into the Webtools (or a separate framework level application): in this way, even with a framework only distribution, you will have a UI to manage your users * product images etc... should be loaded outside of it (in the runtime folder?); no write operation should happen at runtime in the framework folder, ideally 2) the code in the framework is more stable and we could manage for it a separate (from the application) release plan, within the OFBiz community Jacopo > I don't know what that "something" is. Someone with more experience working > in this type of development environment could help with that definition. A > goal similar to the Eclipse plug and play model sounds really attractive to > me. How to get there? I don't know. > > Regards, > Ruth
